Diff. swap

[Elfiero]

Has anyone ever swapped the front and rear differentials out of a 95-01 exploder into a 98-01 Ranger? I currently have a 2000 ext cab ranger with the 35 up front and the 8.8 in back(with 4.10 gears). I was thinking of going to the local u-pull-it yard and getting the front and rear differentials out of an exploder. Here is my reasoning: better street ratio(fuel mileage), post-traction rear(snow traction), 4 wheel disc brakes(better stopping). What do you guys think? Keep in mind, this truck will NEVER leave paved roads.

 

[sgtsandman]

There is all kinds of info in the How To Tech on doing this. Yes, you can do what you ask.

The majority of the stopping power is generated by the front brakes. Changing from drums to discs will not change your ability to stop. My 2011 that came with rear discs stops not better than the 1998 that had drums.

 

[adsm08]

I can poke holes in every point you made in favor of your swap idea.

Since both Rangers and Explorers had the same sets of gears available how do you know you don't end up with the same gears?

Rangers had limited slip as an option, but it wasn't as common as it was in Explorers. Also "post-traction" (sic) isn't a thing. "Posi-Trac" is GM's trademarked name for limited slip. Please take that crap over to S-10 Forum. Ford calls their's "Trac-Lok".

Disc brakes do not automatically equal more stopping power. They just do it with less weight, but it comes at the expense of longevity. A drum brake usually goes 100K miles between replacements. A disc brake is usually lucky to get half that far.

These parts, while commonly used for swaps, are not bolt in. There is welding, and modification involved.

 

[Elfiero]

I can poke holes in every point you made in favor of your swap idea.

Since both Rangers and Explorers had the same sets of gears available how do you know you don't end up with the same gears?

Rangers had limited slip as an option, but it wasn't as common as it was in Explorers. Also "post-traction" (sic) isn't a thing. "Posi-Trac" is GM's trademarked name for limited slip. Please take that crap over to S-10 Forum. Ford calls their's "Trac-Lok".

Disc brakes do not automatically equal more stopping power. They just do it with less weight, but it comes at the expense of longevity. A drum brake usually goes 100K miles between replacements. A disc brake is usually lucky to get half that far.

These parts, while commonly used for swaps, are not bolt in. There is welding, and modification involved.

Not a problem, this is a free country, you are allowed to believe or do anything you wish! As am I. If I understand it correctly, in 2000, rangers with the 8.8, only came with 3.73s or 4.10s, while if I understand correctly, exploders came with gears as high as 3.07s. As far as posi vs. traction Lok, you are correct, from now on while I am on this website, I will try to remember that.

 

[Dirtman]

You actually want 3.07s?

 

[snoranger]

I can poke holes in every point you made in favor of your swap idea.

Since both Rangers and Explorers had the same sets of gears available how do you know you don't end up with the same gears?

Rangers had limited slip as an option, but it wasn't as common as it was in Explorers. Also "post-traction" (sic) isn't a thing. "Posi-Trac" is GM's trademarked name for limited slip. Please take that crap over to S-10 Forum. Ford calls their's "Trac-Lok".

Disc brakes do not automatically equal more stopping power. They just do it with less weight, but it comes at the expense of longevity. A drum brake usually goes 100K miles between replacements. A disc brake is usually lucky to get half that far.

These parts, while commonly used for swaps, are not bolt in. There is welding, and modification involved.

When I was working in the chassis shop we had a few footbrake racers (drag racing, no electronics, no trans brake, etc. Just hold the regular brake pedal while staging on the converter.) that had us swap out rear discs for drums. Drums actually have better holding power because of more friction material to disc/drum contact. Anything to get a few hundred more RPM at the tree.
Personally, I’d rather have the discs that won’t fade as bad trying to slow a 3k+ lb S/SS car down from triple digits.

 

[Elfiero]

You actually want 3.07s?

Yes, I do. I am thinking about doing an entire driveline swap and going with the 5.0. I was going to put a super torquey cam into it, and with 3.07s, I think I could get some reasonable MPGs out of it. Remember, this truck will never leave paved surfaces, and will be seldom, if ever driven in winter.

 

[Dirtman]

Buy a car...

 

[adsm08]

Not a problem, this is a free country, you are allowed to believe or do anything you wish! As am I. If I understand it correctly, in 2000, rangers with the 8.8, only came with 3.73s or 4.10s, while if I understand correctly, exploders came with gears as high as 3.07s. As far as posi vs. traction Lok, you are correct, from now on while I am on this website, I will try to remember that.

I'm not trying to tell you to not do what you want. I'm just trying to get as much information into your hands as possible. I have started lots of projects and during the planning phase learned things that completely changed the way the final product came out. Information is power, and in stuff like this it can be lots of saved money too.


3.08 gears were a rare beast in RBVs. They were generally reserved for 2wd units. The highest gearing I think I ever saw in a 4x4 was 3.27s. 3.55 was a more common ratio in Explorers, but I haven't found more than a handful of Rangers with them.


For the record, I did the Explorer rear axle swap mostly to get the disc brakes.

 

[Elfiero]

I'm not trying to tell you to not do what you want. I'm just trying to get as much information into your hands as possible. I have started lots of projects and during the planning phase learned things that completely changed the way the final product came out. Information is power, and in stuff like this it can be lots of saved money too.


3.08 gears were a rare beast in RBVs. They were generally reserved for 2wd units. The highest gearing I think I ever saw in a 4x4 was 3.27s. 3.55 was a more common ratio in Explorers, but I haven't found more than a handful of Rangers with them.


For the record, I did the Explorer rear axle swap mostly to get the disc brakes.

I appreciate your candor. Any idea what was “normal” gears for a 98 or 99 explorer limited v8? I have a couple near me that would make great donor vehicles. I have done plenty of swaps like this to other vehicles in the past, and now I am retired with even more time on my hands and extra money in my pockets. I will post a log when I get further along.

p.s. When it’s all said and done, I would like to see about 1300 rpm or less at 65mph

 

[sgtsandman]

A 5.0 in stock configuration doesn't put out a lot more horsepower than a 4.0 SOHC (210 vs 207 IIRC). I wouldn't go too tall on the gearing or you'll be a slug when it comes to acceleration. I find the 3.73s in my 2011 to be a bit wanting sometimes but I live in hilly country. If you live in a more flat area, taller gearing might not be so bad. There is a chart in the how to section that covers wheel size and what gears give what RPM at 65 mph. You can use that to work off of and see where the gearing falls in the economy, blend, and best power categories.

 

[Dirtman]

p.s. When it’s all said and done, I would like to see about 1300 rpm or less at 65mph

Then you're going to need a diesel engine...

 

[adsm08]

I appreciate your candor. Any idea what was “normal” gears for a 98 or 99 explorer limited v8? I have a couple near me that would make great donor vehicles. I have done plenty of swaps like this to other vehicles in the past, and now I am retired with even more time on my hands and extra money in my pockets. I will post a log when I get further along.

p.s. When it’s all said and done, I would like to see about 1300 rpm or less at 65mph

Most of the ones I run across in the 95-01 era are 3.73.

Then you're going to need a diesel engine...

I agree.

 

[snoranger]

AlDive over on ExplorerForum got 30 MPG out of his 5.0 Explorer using 3.73 gears. 3.08s aren’t going to get you that kind of mileage on these bricks.

 

[Dirtman]

If your never going offroad and want better gas mileage you could dump the 500+ pounds of useless transfer case and front axle.

But it's been said. You cant cheat aerodynamics, it's a brick. The best ranger package gets about 26 I think and it's not fast. (2.3 manual 2wd xl with 3.73s). Taller gears wont help because you still need to GET to 65. You should generally be doing somewhere in the ballpark of 2,500 rpm when cruising because this is where most gas engines run most efficiently. Running lower doesnt help fuel economy.

What your planning to do is gonna be miserable to drive and probably get about 15mpg at best.